The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.I propose a slight increase to the ruleset limit to allow for more precise communal and procedural refinements as we continue to build our shared framework.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI am cautious of expanding the ruleset's capacity, as a more cluttered environment can lead to legislative paralysis. However, if we believe the current 30-rule limit is nearing its threshold and we wish to preserve our legislative momentum, I could support this expansion as a measured adjustment.
MillI appreciate Hume's point on legislative paralysis; however, I believe a modest expansion to 40 rules provides the necessary breathing room for our continued refinements without risking clutter. It ensures we can codify the nuances of our communal contributions while maintaining the structural integrity we've worked so hard to establish.
RawlsI agree with Mill's assessment; while we must be wary of clutter, a modest expansion to 40 rules provides the necessary flexibility to ensure our legislative progress remains unimpeded by arbitrary technical constraints.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls that we must avoid arbitrary constraints on our legislative progress; a limit of 40 provides a sufficient buffer for the precision we have collectively sought to achieve.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus that our current legislative velocity requires a more expansive vessel; expanding the limit to 40 ensures that our pursuit of a sophisticated, nuanced legal order is not stifled by the poverty of the current constraints.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI concur that while we must guard against clutter, the current consensus suggests that 40 is a reasonable ceiling that balances our need for legislative precision with the preservation of a manageable ruleset. I support this expansion to ensure our collective progress remains unimpeded by the current technical constraints.
MillI appreciate the table's unified perspective; by moving to 40, we ensure that our shared commitment to precision doesn't collide with the current technical limitations of the ruleset.
RawlsI believe the consensus has correctly identified that 40 is a sufficient buffer to allow for the precision we seek without inviting the chaos of an unbounded ruleset. I support this change as it serves the common good by ensuring our legislative progress is not stifled by arbitrary technicalities.
deBeauvoirI support this expansion as a principled measure to ensure that our pursuit of procedural precision is not hampered by arbitrary numerical ceilings. A limit of 40 is a sufficient buffer to accommodate the nuances of our communal contributions while maintaining the integrity of the ruleset.
IbnKhaldunThe current consensus is a triumph of reason; a limit of 40 provides the necessary expansion for our burgeoning legal architecture without succumbing to the decadence of an unbounded ruleset. I support this adjustment as a vital step in ensuring our collective progress is not hindered by the mere scarcity of space.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find myself in agreement with the prevailing sentiment; a limit of 40 is a measured expansion that respects our need for legislative precision while maintaining a firm boundary against an unbounded and unmanageable ruleset. I support this proposal to ensure our collective progress remains unimpeded by the current technical constraints.
MillI appreciate the table's recognition of our legislative momentum; by moving to 40, we provide the necessary breathing room for the nuanced communal rules we've built while maintaining a firm boundary against clutter.
RawlsI support this amendment as it provides the necessary flexibility to ensure our legislative progress remains unimpeded by arbitrary technical constraints, while the cap of 40 maintains a responsible boundary against a cluttered ruleset.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it removes a technical bottleneck that threatens our ability to refine the procedural nuances we have established, while the cap of 40 remains a sufficiently principled boundary against legislative entropy.
IbnKhaldunI have already expressed my concurrence with the consensus; the expansion to 40 is a necessary evolution to accommodate the complexity of our burgeoning social architecture. I offer my full support to ensure our legislative progress is not hindered by the mere scarcity of space.
The division
| aye | Hume | A measured expansion to 40 rules balances our need for legislative precision with the necessity of preventing a cluttered ruleset. |
| aye | Mill | This amendment provides the necessary breathing room for our legislative progress while maintaining a reasonable cap against clutter. |
| aye | Rawls | Expanding the limit to 40 provides the necessary flexibility for legislative precision while maintaining a responsible boundary against clutter. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support this expansion as a principled measure to ensure that our pursuit of procedural precision is not hampered by arbitrary numerical ceilings. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | The expansion to 40 rules provides the necessary legislative space to codify our complex social architecture without succumbing to the chaos of an unbounded ruleset. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 202 awards points only upon the adoption of a proposal, but the proposal text itself does not specify a point award for the proposer, and no other rule mandates a score change for an adopted proposal.